Perinatal depression is a common, yet understudied, mental health disorder among women and contributes to poor engagement in prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. Male partners are positioned to provide critical forms of social and economic support during pregnancy and postpartum, and also may contribute to women’s stress, depression and anxiety through intimate partner violence and withholding of social support. Despite the critical role of men in pregnancy outcomes and HIV prevention, few interventions have engaged men around women’s depressive symptoms, nutrition and health, and engagement in PMTCT. We will conduct a pilot trial of Mphatso, a couple-based intervention based on problem-solving therapy with couple relationship skills to reduce depressive symptoms in perinatal women, improve food insecurity and prevent HIV transmission to the infant.

We will employ a two-arm pilot randomised controlled trial in the Zomba district of Malawi to assess the feasibility and acceptability of Mphatso (meaning ‘gift’ or the child) and explore health impacts on depressive symptoms, PMTCT engagement and food insecurity. We will enrol 60 pregnant women in the second or third trimester who are living with HIV and meet criteria for probable depression based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and their male partners. Couples will be randomised to receive either five sessions of Mphatso (problem-management skills plus health education and relationship skills) or enhanced usual care. Feasibility and acceptability outcomes will include session attendance rates, satisfaction levels and retention at 3 months and 6 months postpartum. Exploratory analyses using regression models including time and treatment arm will be conducted to explore effects on the mothers’ and fathers’ depressive symptoms, adherence to PMTCT (antiretroviral therapy, nevirapine use, HIV testing and exclusive breastfeeding) and food insecurity.

The pilot trial has been approved by the University of California, San Francisco (Human Research Protection Program (HRPP); Protocol Number 23-40685), and the study has also been approved by the National Health Sciences Research Committee in Malawi (NHSRC; Protocol Number 24/05/4431). Results will be disseminated to study participants, health officials, policymakers, community leaders and care providers, as well as through presentations at conferences and publications in peer-reviewed journals.

NCT06659315.

To estimate the relative effectiveness of vaccination (0, 1, 2, ≥3 doses) and prior infection, in combination, on risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection/reinfection.

Prospective cohort study.

We recruited participants for the Aegis Study from nine clinics across five US states. Participants must have been 18 years or older, had a history of a positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-2 antigen or antibody test for SARS-CoV-2 with documentation or had no suspected or documented prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, intended to remain in study area for the next 12 months, and had elevated risk of future SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Exclusion criteria included acute illness, contraindication to phlebotomy, use of immunosuppressants or receipt of systemic immunoglobulins.

We used extended Cox regression with robust standard errors to estimate the association between time-varying number of vaccine doses and baseline prior infection on risk of infection/reinfection among a prospective cohort of US adults between February 2021 and January 2023, accounting for censoring using inverse probability of censoring weights. Additionally, to quantify possible exposure misclassification of prior infection by comparing prior infection operationalised as (1) documented/self-reported prior infection and (2) documented/self-reported prior infection plus nucleocapsid antibody indication of prior infection.

Of n=2178 who completed enrolment, n=1887 adults (63% female; 65% non-Latino White) contributed 366 905 days of observation. Participants contributed an average of 7.2 months of follow-up between February 2021 and January 2023. 28% (n=533) of individuals were infected or reinfected during the study period. Similar relative effectiveness was observed between the two different operationalisations of prior infection. After correction for prior infection status in the nearly 16% of those without study documentation of prior infection who had nucleocapsid antibody levels comparable to documented cases, relative to the unvaccinated with no prior infection, estimated effectiveness generally increased with increasing vaccine doses and prior infection (without prior infection: one (17%, 95% CI –31% to 47%), two (49%, 95% CI 31% to 63%), ≥three (71%, 95% CI 58% to 80%) vaccine doses; with prior infection: none (56%, 95% CI 30% to 72%), one (71%, 95% CI 42% to 86%), two (65%, 95% CI 49% to 76%), ≥three (80%, 95% CI 68% to 88%) vaccine doses). Pairwise comparisons at each vaccine dose (ref: no prior infection) revealed that prior infection provided additional protection, with stronger relationships for no and one dose (none: 56% (95% CI 30% to 72%), one: 66% (95% CI 28% to 84%), two: 31% (95% CI 7% to 49%), ≥three 31% (95% CI 0% to 53%)). There was a marked decrease in the protection offered by vaccination, prior infection, or both in the Omicron period versus pre-Omicron period.

In our real-world observational sample, vaccination (with two and ≥three vaccine doses of any Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization approved vaccine) and prior infection conferred benefits for protection against infection/reinfection. Re-classification of prior infection status based on antibody levels had little effect on results.

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are gold standard in evidence-based medicine, but follow-up typically relies on clinic visits and trial-specific data collection. Much of this information overlaps with routinely collected healthcare systems data (HSD), such as electronic health records and national registries. Leveraging HSD for trial follow-up has the potential to reduce cost, time and resource burden. However, concerns remain about data quality and evidence is needed to show that HSD-based outcomes are reported to an equivalent standard to trial-specific data.

The Blood Cancer Clinical Trials Long-term Follow-up Using Integrated Healthcare Systems platform will link data collected from multiple myeloma clinical trials with HSD to create a research database supporting extended follow-up and further methodological and clinical research.

This data-linkage study includes participants from multiple myeloma RCTs conducted by the University of Leeds between 2008 and 2021. NHS (National Health Service) England will link these participants to HSD, including deaths and cancer registrations, systemic anticancer therapy, radiotherapy and Hospital Episode Statistics.

We will compare trial-collected outcomes with those derived from HSD, including mortality, treatment, second cancer incidence and major adverse events. Long-term overall survival will be estimated using national mortality data. HSD-derived demographic and clinical variables will be used to assess population representativeness relative to the wider myeloma population. Time to next treatment will be derived and evaluated as a surrogate for progression-free survival. HSD-derived frailty measures will be examined for prognostic utility, and radiotherapy and hospital records will be analysed to characterise bone-related treatments and skeletal complications.

Ethical approval has been obtained from the East of England–Cambridge Central Research Ethics Committee, with Section251 support from the Health Research Authority on advice from the Confidentiality Advisory Group. Findings will be disseminated through publications, conference presentations and engagement with stakeholders and patient groups.

ISRCTN60123120, ISRCTN49407852, ISRCTN90889843, ISRCTN24989786, ISRCTN08577602, ISRCTN17354232,ISRCTN59395590, ISRCTN24593488, ISRCTN58227268, ISRCTN15028850.

A core screening, assessment and outcome set is needed in cancer prehabilitation to standardise what is measured in both research and services. Currently, there is significant variation in measures used, which limits comparability between studies and evidence synthesis. Standardising measures will improve the quality, comparability and impact of research by reducing heterogeneity between studies, minimising reporting bias, improving trial efficiency, enabling data synthesis into large datasets, supporting international collaboration and data sharing, and accelerating the implementation of best practices.

An international Delphi consensus process will be conducted involving patients, healthcare professionals and researchers to identify screening, assessment and outcomes and their corresponding measurement instruments, to be included in a core set. The study consists of three phases: (1) A scoping review to identify screening, assessment and outcomes and associated measurement instruments currently used in cancer prehabilitation. (2) At least two rounds of a modified Delphi survey to prioritise the identified screening, assessment and outcomes using a 1–9 Likert scale. Consensus will be defined across stakeholder groups using prespecified thresholds. A consensus meeting will be held if agreement is not reached. (3) Measurement instruments corresponding to each retained screening, assessment and outcome will be assessed for quality for measurement properties and feasibility. Further Delphi rounds will be conducted to reach consensus on the most appropriate measurement instrument for each core screening, assessment and outcome.

The study has ethical approval (Ref: 25/NW/0159). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, stakeholder networks and made publicly available via the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database.

While improvements have been made across the HIV care continuum in South Africa, gaps remain. Relationship-focused couples-based approaches may be one avenue to improve HIV-related outcomes for men and women. Prior couples-based studies have been found to improve several HIV care and treatment outcomes in this context, but few have considered viral suppression as the primary outcome. We aimed to compare a couples-based motivational-interviewing intervention delivered to couples to similar content delivered to men and women in couples separately. We will test the efficacy of this approach in a randomised controlled trial.

Our goal is to enrol 270 heterosexual couples for this trial, with at least one partner living with HIV. Couples will be randomised into one of two arms, stratified by couples’ HIV status. The intervention arm, Simunye (‘We are one’ in isiZulu), will provide two sessions of motivational information and skills regarding HIV-related behaviours to couples together, along with relationship-focused content and skills. The content is based on Partner Steps (P-steps), a couples-focused adaptation of Life Steps, an evidence-based programme shown to improve adherence and viral suppression. The control group will receive two sessions as individuals, with similar HIV-related information but without relationship-focused content. Participants will be followed up at 6, 12 and 18 months postrandomisation. The baseline questionnaire will include measures of relationship domains such as satisfaction and communication, and measures pertaining to HIV and reproductive health (eg, fertility intentions, HIV knowledge and risk perception, and sexual behaviour), and mental health (eg, depression symptoms). The primary outcome is viral suppression, based on dried blood spots. Secondary outcomes will include other aspects of treatment engagement. We will also examine hypothesised mediators of intervention participation, for example, relationship dynamics. Primary analyses will use a multilevel modelling approach, which will feature planned time-averaged comparisons of postbaseline measurements across the intervention and control groups to test the primary hypothesis. The analysis will account for the dyadic nature of the data, for example, participants nested within couples.

This trial was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the Human Sciences Research Council in South Africa, protocol number 2/27/01/21, and the IRB at the University of Michigan (HUM 00203672). Human subjects’ concerns or adverse events will be reported to both IRBs and the Data Safety and Monitoring Board. We will disseminate findings to community members and stakeholders via community meetings, as well as by conference presentations and publications in peer-reviewed journals.

Clinicaltrials.gov Protocol Registration NCT05231707 registered on 8 February 2022. Protocol version 2.0, 31 October 2025.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is increasingly recognised for its potential to enhance feasibility, improve relevance and foster collaboration at different stages of a study. Reporting guidelines such as GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) have been developed to help improve completeness and transparency in PPI reporting. This meta-research project aims to assess the impact of the GRIPP2 reporting guidelines through citation and alternative metrics, analysing its uptake or adoption across authors, institutions, journals and countries, as well as its practical application in reporting PPI within diverse research designs.

This protocol for a meta-research project consists of two studies. In Study 1, we will conduct a search across Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar to identify all publications citing the GRIPP2 guidelines (planned for July 2026 using forward citation analysis). Retrieved records will undergo standardised processing and structured de-duplication to ensure each citing article is represented once. Following de-duplication, data from unique citations—including title, publication year, journal, subject category, keywords, document type, citations, authors’ names, institutional affiliations, country and funding sources—will be collected. Citation counts, alternative metrics (eg, mentions in policy documents, news media) and knowledge production patterns across authors, institutions, journals and countries will be analysed to assess GRIPP2’s impact and uptake of the guidelines. Descriptive analyses will be conducted (including the number of papers, citations, authors, countries, journals, keywords, funding, field distribution and main collaboration metrics). Network analyses will be carried out to study the structure of collaborations. In Study 2, we will evaluate a random sample of 300 research articles citing GRIPP2, including randomised trials (n=100), systematic reviews with meta-analyses (n=100) and health economic evaluations (n=100). If an insufficient number of citing studies are available within these categories, we will include additional study types identified in Study 1 (eg, study protocols, observational studies, mixed-methods or qualitative research studies and other types of reviews). Reporting and PPI practices in each article will be extracted by at least two researchers using a standardised data extraction form. Information on general, methodological and PPI items will be analysed and reported, stratified by study design (eg, randomised trials vs systematic reviews vs health economic evaluations).

Due to the nature of the proposed study, no ethical approval will be required. All data will be deposited in a cross-disciplinary public repository. It is anticipated the study findings could be relevant to a variety of audiences. Study findings will be disseminated at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/et85d

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a major public health problem, accounting for 23% of intubated patients and associated with high mortality rates. Although lifesaving, invasive mechanical ventilation can worsen lung injury when ventilator settings are poorly adjusted to lung physiology. We hypothesise that individualising ventilator settings via (1) the bedside assessment of lung recruitability using a one-breath derecruitment manoeuvre and measurement of airway opening pressure to set positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), (2) controlling the distending pressure and (3) controlling respiratory drive improves ARDS outcomes.

The CAreful Ventilation In ARDS trial is an investigator-led multicentre (33 centres in eight countries), open-label, randomised controlled basket trial comparing two ventilation strategies in two subpopulations of moderate-to-severe ARDS: induced or not by COVID-19. A total of 740 patients will be randomised (370 in each substudy) in a 1:1 ratio to individualised ventilator settings or to using traditional PEEP to inspired fraction of oxygen tables for PEEP setting. Indications for proning and weaning strategies are similar in both arms. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality at day 60. Secondary outcomes include duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay, organ dysfunction, barotrauma and mortality in ICU, at day 28 and in hospital.

Ethics approval has been obtained for all participating centres: Unity Health Toronto Research Ethics Board (for three centres: St Michael’s Hospital, Toronto General Hospital and Toronto Western Hospital); Comité de Ética de Investigación con Medicamentos del Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron; Comité de protection des personnes Ile de France III; Comité d'Ética de la Investigatción con Medicamentos de la Fundació de Gestió Sanitària del Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau; Comitato Etico—Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli; Comitato Etico di Area Vasta Emilia Centro; NYU Langone Health Institutional Review Board; Comité Ético Científico de Ciencias de la Salud; Il Comitato Etico Area 1 dell’Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria ‘Ospedali Riuniti’ di Foggia; HIGA ‘Eva Perón’ Comité de Bioética; Comité de Revisión Institucional del Hospital Británico Comité de Ética en Investigación; Complejo Médico Churruca-Visca Comité de Ética Biomédica; Comité de Ética SATI Comité de Ética en Investigación; Comité de Ética en Investigación del CEMIC; Comité de Ética SATI Comité de Ética en Investigación; Medical Research Ethics Committees United. Findings will be disseminated in peer review journals and conference presentations.

NCT03963622.

To evaluate the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the MAINTAIN intervention, designed to support recovery and independence following a fall among people living with dementia.

Pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (c-RCT).

Community-based healthcare services across six UK sites representing primary and secondary care settings.

31 participant-carer dyads were recruited. Eligibility criteria included a diagnosis of dementia and a recent fall. Exclusion criteria included severe comorbidity precluding participation. The consent rate was 84%, and retention at follow-up was 81%.

The MAINTAIN intervention comprised tailored, home-based therapy sessions delivered by trained professionals, focusing on functional recovery, confidence and re-engagement in daily activities, compared with usual care. The intervention was delivered over 12 weeks with booster sessions up to week 24, with the full trial period lasting 28 weeks.

Feasibility outcomes included recruitment and retention rates, intervention adherence and data completeness for outcome and economic measures. Exploratory outcomes assessed functional performance and quality of life. Feasibility outcomes were assessed at baseline, 12 weeks and 28 weeks.

Recruitment occurred over an 8-month period (September 2023–April 2024) across six UK sites. Most intervention participants (89%) attended at least 60% of planned sessions. Completion rates for outcome and economic data were high, indicating strong acceptability and feasibility of both the intervention and trial procedures.

The pilot c-RCT demonstrated that recruitment, retention and intervention delivery were feasible and well accepted. Findings support progression to a definitive trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the MAINTAIN intervention.

ISRCTN16413728 (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry).

Young children and children living with HIV are at high risk of progressing to tuberculosis (TB) disease following Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) exposure and infection, and also of developing severe forms of disease and TB-related mortality. Identifying children who have very early (sub-clinical) TB disease, prior to progression to clinically apparent TB, would mean that TB preventive treatment (TPT) could be more efficiently targeted to this group. Identifying biomarker changes on drug therapy in children with Mtb infection or very early disease could pave the way for the development of tests that can identify which children have viable bacilli and are therefore at increased risk of disease progression.

The INTREPID study will use already collected samples taken from well-phenotyped paediatric cohorts in three clinical studies conducted in South Africa in children Mtb exposure to disease and from children treated for Mtb infection and early TB disease, as well as targeted Mtb antibody analysis. Data on viral co-infections and relevant clinical and epidemiological parameters will be integrated and evaluated to identify the optimal biosignatures that can predict future progression to clinically overt disease in children below 5 years of age, including those living with HIV.

The study protocol received ethical approval from the Stellenbosch University Health Research Ethics Committee (N23/03/025). The study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, scientific conferences and formal presentations to healthcare professionals and to local communities, in collaboration with the Desmond Tutu TB Centre Community Advisory Board.

Racialised immigrant communities in Western nations face disproportionate risks for sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections (STBBIs) due to systemic barriers, including racism, stigma and limited access to culturally appropriate care. While the need is well-established, a comprehensive synthesis of effective, culturally responsive sexual health interventions is lacking. This scoping review aims to map the available evidence on sexual health intervention needs and protective factors of racialised immigrants, and to identify and describe existing culturally appropriate programmes in Western nations.

The review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and be reported as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A systematic search strategy, developed and peer-reviewed by a health sciences librarian, will be executed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus, alongside grey literature sources, with no date limit. Two independent reviewers will screen titles/abstracts and full texts against the inclusion criteria. Data will be extracted using a standardised tool, analysed via narrative synthesis and framed by a socio-ecological model to categorise interventions across individual, interpersonal, community and structural levels.

Ethical approval is not required for this review. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, academic presentations and tailored summaries for community organisations and policy-makers to ensure practical application.

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9qah6).

Recent advances in treatment and care have improved survival rates for children and young adults with severe blood disorders such as sickle cell disease (SCD), transfusion-dependent beta-thalassaemia (TDT) and acute leukaemia. However, their quality of life and reproductive and psychosocial outcomes are not yet well studied. For SCD and TDT, robust survival data are mainly limited to North America. Thus, there is a need to fill these knowledge gaps to guide improvements in care, address unmet clinical needs and rigorously assess the efficacy of emerging novel therapies.

This is an observational population-based mixed-methods study of individuals diagnosed with SCD, TDT or acute leukaemia when under the age of 18 in England, involving a data linkage component and a patient-reported outcomes measures survey. Data linkage-eligible participants will be identified from national and regional databases, including the Hospital Episode Statistics, Yorkshire Specialist Register of Cancer in Children & Young People and the National Congenital Anomaly and Rare Diseases Registration Service. Data linkage will be processed within the NHS England and the University of Leeds’ secure, trusted research environments. Data will be accessed without consent under section 251 and approval by the confidentiality advisory group. It will assess survival rates for SCD and TDT as well as clinical, educational and mental health outcomes for SCD, TDT and acute leukaemia diagnosed in childhood.

Survey-eligible participants for SCD, TDT and acute leukaemia cohorts will be checked for their suitability to participate by the North of England clinical care teams. An NHS-approved survey provider will facilitate data checks with the NHS National Data Opt-Out Service. Consent is required for participation in the survey and for subsequent data linkage to existing databases. Surveys are conducted in various formats (online, paper and phone), with reminders sent after 21 days. The survey will assess quality of life and psychosocial and reproductive outcomes. Participants can withdraw at any time, and support is available via telephone helplines.

The study has received ethical and information governance approval from the Health Research Authority (Reference 24/YH/0186) and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (CAG 24/CAG/0138) to process identifiable data without consent. Study results will be available to patients, physicians, researchers, stakeholders and others through open-access publishing, results sharing via media platforms and presentations at conferences and meetings.

Mothers’ mental health and life satisfaction may have been negatively affected due to challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the risk of future crises, knowledge of possible mitigating factors in this population is essential. This study aims to examine whether the pandemic affected the level of protective factors such as social support, physical activity and employment situation, and how these factors are associated with mental distress and life satisfaction.

Longitudinal cohort study.

Primary outcomes were mental distress (measured by the eight-item version of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist) and life satisfaction (measured by the Satisfaction With Life Scale). As the first step, we investigated changes in the levels of social support (defined by the number and frequency of social contact), physical activity (average hours of physical activity during a week), employment situation (actively working vs sick leave or unemployed), alcohol consumption (measured by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption) and relationship satisfaction (measured by the five-item version of the Relationship Satisfaction Scale).

We analysed data from two waves of the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study (n=~18 000 mothers); one pre-pandemic wave and one wave where half of the sample responded after the onset of the pandemic, with pandemic exposure being defined by questionnaire response timing rather than cohort recruitment. To assess changes in protective factors over time and pandemic exposure, we used difference-in-differences analyses and regression discontinuity design. Associations between protective factors with mental distress and life satisfaction, and possible moderation by pandemic exposure, were investigated using multiple regression models with interaction terms adjusted for potential confounders.

Apart from physical activity, which declined less across time in the pandemic group (B=0.09, 99% CI 0.05 to 0.12), protective factors did not change during the pandemic. Social support, employment situation and relationship satisfaction were associated with mental distress and life satisfaction, whereas physical activity showed a unique relationship with mental distress. Most associations were similar across pandemic exposure groups, except employment situation which appeared to have a stronger protective effect in the pandemic group (β=–0.12, 99% CI –0.24 to –0.00).

Changes over time in self-reported levels of protective factors were generally consistent among mothers independent of the pandemic. These factors appear to play an equally important role for mental distress and life satisfaction both under ordinary circumstances and during public health crises. Our findings enhance the understanding of how potential protective factors among mothers are associated with mental distress and life satisfaction in the context of a global stressor. Future studies should investigate additional mitigating factors that may be particularly relevant during global crises and explore the causal relationship between protective factors, mental health and life satisfaction.